74 replies to this topic

[GHQCommander]

I think they will, but not as avatars.

It will be a massive patch I'm betting, Season 2: Vehicle Mayhem!

Every vehicle will need to have some use and purpose. I would like a group of 3-5 tanks as pets, maybe infantry soldiers could exit them and enter buildings as if searching or even securing buildings as part of objectives. Then infantry get back into the tanks or APC. This would create an objective of capturing and the waiting have purpose.

Right now if mechs had to wait beside a building I think it would be silly. I know all this will probably never come but I think it could work and be a fun little element. Having little troops you want to protect with your massive mech is always good for the hero in us.

[Arthwys IronHand]

CCC Dober, on 15 June 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

The WoT dev team has never shown any capability of delivering in this department. Game characters specifically. In fact, nothing would suggest that their dev team can do more than shop a few 3d models and 'adjust' them as they see fit. One of the hints/slips was the first incarnation of the T54, which was flattened in such a way that made it look like a 'cockroach' in order to give it better angles to bounce more shots than it had a right to. Perfectly balanced and never admitted to be wrong, although proven otherwise ... repeatedly. This is not a professional dev team you are looking at over there, with neither the capacity, nor the capability of delivering state of the art games any time soon.

Please do not mix them up with this dev team, please, as there is an incredible gap in talent and capability. MWO devs are not limited in the same way the WoT devs are and continue to be. Just look at their engine for crying out loud and pray tell why they haven't licensed a solid engine like PGI yet? Because they aren't professionals and are severely lacking in that department. It's not that they couldn't afford it, far from it. The CryEngine can achieve all that we could wish for and more, if not for the fact that it has been proven to make all kinds of vehicles and infantry work in the same game *coughCrysiscough*.

Your issues with the game and it's dev team aside, I'm not saying WoT is the top when it comes to MMOs or F2P MMOs. They're simply the example I chose for a currently popular F2P MMO simulator. That game's and their team's shortcomings notwithstanding My points are imo valid. I've not seen yea or nay from you regarding my points, or why you would think so. Which seems to me to say you missed my point.

Edited by Arthwys IronHand, 15 June 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[BFalcon]

GHQCommander, on 15 June 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

I think they will, but not as avatars.

It will be a massive patch I'm betting, Season 2: Vehicle Mayhem!

Every vehicle will need to have some use and purpose. I would like a group of 3-5 tanks as pets, maybe infantry soldiers could exit them and enter buildings as if searching or even securing buildings as part of objectives. Then infantry get back into the tanks or APC. This would create an objective of capturing and the waiting have purpose.

Right now if mechs had to wait beside a building I think it would be silly. I know all this will probably never come but I think it could work and be a fun little element. Having little troops you want to protect with your massive mech is always good for the hero in us.

True... and who didn't have fun (at least at first) stepping on infantry in MW3?

[SpilightTwarkle]

mechs first THEN give us tanks.

[Basilisk51]

The only way to do would be as a strategic asset before game. Each team get 1 or 2 maybe 3 of them and they range from, support to maybe a respawn for a single player if your base isnt getting capped. If you chose support maybe a single demolisher and 2 myrmidons(or something along those lines) would patrol and stay 200m near your base so then your team could go out and not have to worry about insta caps from lights that dont want to scout for everyone just play the base game. Anything else would be to powerful and the game is about mechs not vehicles and although cool (I love myrmidons) they wouldn't be easy to balance even if the turret was the top of the mech and the treads where the legs so the control system for them is already in game. They should also defiantely not be playable but NPC if they are even considered.

[Jost]

BFalcon, on 15 June 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Care to elaborate on this?

Sure. The _story_ of BattleTech (on which MechWarrior etc is based) is about Mech combat. The game designers were explicit about this in interviews: it's a game of Mech combat.

Introducing a tech tree for tanks would remove the focus from the giant stompy death robots and put it on tanks. Unless the tanks were so nerfed that they had no effect in the game, in which case we wouldn't be able to hear the explosions over the sound of the whining about how badly tanks are nerfed.

Short form? Vehicles and air are a part of BT canon, and might have a role in the game, but if they're included for players, they'll change the story.

[gregsolidus]

I don't think we have enough players per match to make vehicles worth it.NPC vehicles would be a nice addition though.

[Redchameleon]

I'm a tank lover and I would love to see them put in the:

LRM Carrier
SRM Carrier
Condor Hovercraft
Harasser Hovercraft
Bulldog Tank <-- (my favorite)
Demolisher II Tank
Myrmidon Tank
Quad Panzer Tank
Vedette Tank

Edited by Lieutenant Lawson, 05 October 2012 - 07:47 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Don't forget the Oro. The Oro is wonderful.

[StickEGreen]

Maybe after they have 60+ mech chasis in game.

[Kyone Akashi]

This isn't Battlefield. I do not think the focus should shift away from battlemechs - which will happen if the majority of units available to players is not 'mechs. May as well include infantry while we are at it.

However, what I think would be interesting is a small selection of easily destroyed yet potentially useful vehicles or even infantry as (map-dependent? or tied to the community warfare system?) NPC-controlled tactical assets for the team. Perhaps the team commander could set orders for these units, or they patrol independently on a random selection of predetermined paths (like a mobile environmental hazard for the other team). To keep things simple, the selection of units would be small yet characterful. I am thinking perhaps a recon VTOL (patched into the allied team's sensors), an SRM-equipped infantry team, a static Long Tom artillery piece, and a medium-sized tank.

Either way, it would be a thought for the far future, but it is fun imagining what would be possible.

[Thofi]

I'd like to have em in the game.
Even it is a mixed feeling, because i wouldn'd like to have a srm-carrier waiting for me at the enemy base...
Those 10x SRM-6 will hit quite hard...

[Adrienne Vorton]

i would like to see vehicles, airbourne and infantry in the commander-skilltree within the "supportunits" line

Thofi, on 05 October 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

I'd like to have em in the game.
Even it is a mixed feeling, because i wouldn'd like to have a srm-carrier waiting for me at the enemy base...
Those 10x SRM-6 will hit quite hard...

haha lol, yes...but it would be more a reaction-test than a fight

[EDMW CSN]

Work on mechs first.
Fill in the rest later.

[Alcion]

Speaking for a friend, because I know what he likes, tanks, vtols, infantry, battlesuits and all can be damned as long as he gets to use a minelayer.

My opinion is that, while I would like to see it as well, making these things player controlled would throw balance out the window.